Committee adopts changes to City Council rules limiting offensive language after heated public comment

The Los Angeles Intergovernmental Relations Committee voted to adopt changes to City Council rules Nos. 7 and 63 that restrict the use of offensive language in City Hall meetings, the committee chair announced following a roll-call vote that passed 4-0 with one member recorded as absent.

The measure, described in the meeting as revisions to the council’s public-comment rules, drew several minutes of public comment both for and against before the committee voted to adopt the changes.

Why it matters: Supporters said the change is intended to make civic forums safer and more welcoming, particularly for young people, while opponents warned it could clash with the First Amendment and raise accessibility issues under federal law.

Members of the public and local educators addressed the committee during a lengthy public-comment period. Greg Ferrazy, who identified himself as a resident of South Los Angeles, said public forums must be “a place where everyone feels respected,” adding, “Queremos un medio ambiente que no es intimidante o irrespetuoso.”

Rogelio Sánchez Jr., identified in the record as a school principal, told the committee that allowing hateful language sends the wrong message to students and undermines civic engagement: “No podemos permitir eso,” he said.

Setzer Ronson, identified as an assistant principal at Birch Tech High School, said students “understand responsibility” and urged the committee to support the rule change to protect youth. Paloma Aborta, who said she works for Flying Food Group, also spoke in favor of restricting epithets so workers and community members can participate without harassment.

At the same time, a public commenter raised constitutional objections and accessibility concerns, saying the proposed changes could conflict with the First Amendment and with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The commenter also referenced the U.S. Supreme Court decision Brandenburg v. Ohio when discussing allowable limits on speech. That person’s remarks were recorded in the public record but were not attributed to a named speaker in committee minutes.

The committee’s official action followed the public comment period. The meeting record shows the motion to adopt the rule changes carried by a 4-0 vote; one member was listed as absent. The transcript does not record a named mover or seconder for the motion in the segments provided.

The committee did not discuss enforcement procedures in detail during the recorded session; staff or counsel were not recorded presenting a formal legal analysis on the floor during the portion of the transcript provided.

The measure was adopted and will be reflected in the council’s rules as amended on the committee record.